A game itself doesn't set precedent. If a game like that occurred, and it went to C&A and was cleared then THAT would set a precedent. Currently, the previous game just means others have done something similar and possibly gotten away w it.

IcePack

the Fallen, an unstoppable wave of Darkness! Armies will lay down their weapons to be taken into our numbers or die and lose their souls. What will you decide?

I don't know why your group think it is fine to what looks like passing the conquerer title around. The second linked game seems like it is the same bunch of people, or some of them. It's kinda dumb if you ask me, because it hasn't been earned. Part of the fun in any game is earning the rewards and KNOWING that you earned it without having it handed to you. It kinda takes away the novelty of gaining such a title when people pull stuff like this.

I should add that I think this falls under cheating. Red clearly tossed the game to Orange. This is not the first time these 2 have done it.

17/57 30% X vs Kiron 22/57 39% Kiron vs X39/57 68% wins between them in all games. I used 8 players and 24 hours. (They only play 8 player games.)

Now playing tons of 8 player games and freestyle is my specialty and even being good you are not going to win 68% of these games between 2 people unless A) you are doing some serious farming or B) You are cheating in some form or fashion. (By cheating that could mean throwing games to each other in the sense of secret diplomacy or in deals like this.)

king achilles wrote:This is NOT to be condoned. You should only resort into making 'deciding games' if the game you are in is in a real stalemate position and everyone else remaining in the game agrees to it. You also just can't say, "I don't think I can win this game. Please attack so and so since we had an agreement from another set of games..." Do not take diplomacy into the next level where friends negotiate on who suicides or throws the game to make sure the other player wins.

Diplomacy should not be to the point where it would dictate you to throw the game away. All players should play to win and not resort to these kind of plays.

king achilles wrote:This is NOT to be condoned. You should only resort into making 'deciding games' if the game you are in is in a real stalemate position and everyone else remaining in the game agrees to it. You also just can't say, "I don't think I can win this game. Please attack so and so since we had an agreement from another set of games..." Do not take diplomacy into the next level where friends negotiate on who suicides or throws the game to make sure the other player wins.

Diplomacy should not be to the point where it would dictate you to throw the game away. All players should play to win and not resort to these kind of plays.

king achilles wrote:This is NOT to be condoned. You should only resort into making 'deciding games' if the game you are in is in a real stalemate position and everyone else remaining in the game agrees to it. You also just can't say, "I don't think I can win this game. Please attack so and so since we had an agreement from another set of games..." Do not take diplomacy into the next level where friends negotiate on who suicides or throws the game to make sure the other player wins.

Diplomacy should not be to the point where it would dictate you to throw the game away. All players should play to win and not resort to these kind of plays.

One game? I think you better look harder. I know you are just quoting King A, but we need to look deeper into this.

I'm just putting KA comments about the situation from General discussion area to this area. I haven't really looked into it either way. If someone thinks more then one game is involved, the additional game #'s etc can be posted. He didn't post it in C&A, so pretty sure that wasn't anything final. But it answers the question whether or not it was allowed or not.

IcePack

the Fallen, an unstoppable wave of Darkness! Armies will lay down their weapons to be taken into our numbers or die and lose their souls. What will you decide?

Shannon Apple wrote:I don't know why your group think it is fine to what looks like passing the conquerer title around. The second linked game seems like it is the same bunch of people, or some of them. It's kinda dumb if you ask me, because it hasn't been earned. Part of the fun in any game is earning the rewards and KNOWING that you earned it without having it handed to you. It kinda takes away the novelty of gaining such a title when people pull stuff like this.

Just my 2 cents.

Who are you to say they have not earned it? Have you worked as hard as them in the few games they play at a time to win? They spend more hours than most watching just one game to make sure they have the best chance possible. They have perfected a strategy for freestyle 8 person games and for objective freestyle games. Is it unlike Ljex who played freestyle quads, blitzahalic who played quads, mc05025 who was an amazing strategist and won in multiple areas consistantly, TheBest when he played 1 v 1 city mogul vs anyone who wanted to play him and won vs even the best of us, or kaskeval who played sequential 1 v 1's (the most unbalanced game settings in cc) and still made it.

What conquerer was able to achieve his rank by playing any type of game vs anyone? none. absolutely none (unless you count the beginning of cc when anyone could get conquerer). That is what conquerer is these days. The person who specializes at a certain game type. The person who puts in the time. The person who has the strategic knowledge. The person who is able to find their niche or the road less traveled by others to reach a high rank.

No one who plays simple games vs other established players will ever reach it. That is the nature of conquerer and the nature of the dice. However noble it is, however fun it is, they will not get to conquerer that way. What you are saying is to reward those players with conquerer when they can never reach it because of the current system. I realizeed this long ago. I love playing other majors/colonels in team games on simple maps just for fun, but the dice decide mosst games.

These "people" who play together all understand the strategy behind it. Others don't do the strategy because they don't understand, or they don't have the time or they think it is cheap. I don't think any strategy is cheap if you make it your own.

It is not strategy to farm new players of course. It is strategy to use settings, maps, and a gametype to your advantage and skill set. Why do you think these "players" have gotten so high in the ranks? because only a few truly get it and can get to the rank.

I was in the game in question. I am not happy to lose in this way, but to say that kiron does not deserve conquerer is obsene. He could have gotten it another way if he chose.

Decide what you like about the tactics used in this game, but Kiron has worked hard and beat the odds to get here.

jsnyder748, you totally missunderstood Shannon post. He didnt say they dont deserve it because they specialize in one setting/game. He said they do not deserve it because they use arrangements between them ! Which is NOT a part of strategy in the game. I played against some of them, they are very good player and they deserve their rank, but that kind of arrangement to make win your mate, this is NOT normal. Definitely not.

donelladan wrote:jsnyder748, you totally missunderstood Shannon post. He didnt say they dont deserve it because they specialize in one setting/game. He said they do not deserve it because they use arrangements between them ! Which is NOT a part of strategy in the game. I played against some of them, they are very good player and they deserve their rank, but that kind of arrangement to make win your mate, this is NOT normal. Definitely not.

As I wrote in the bottom of my previous post I know how questionable it was and I don't support it. I have never used that to win objective games.

What I got from what she wrote is the fact that she or he doesn't understand what skill those players have. She seemed to be basing her assumptions off this one game. That is not how they have won so many games. That is how I read hers. If i really misunderstood it that badly then im sorry, but she seemed naive in her thinking.

she says it wasn't earned. Was his rank unearned. NO. was maybe the 80 points or so to get him to conquerer unearned. YES, but by his track record he would have gotten it eventually or when rabbiton finally leaves the scoreboard because all he does is sit there lol

She also says that the group of players are passing the title around. How would they do this? that would be extreme point dumping. It just shows that good players like to play each other for the challenge. All of those players have a high rank for a reason.

probably should lock this thread....I don't want to think about it anymore.

Bruceswar wrote:Nobody is saying these guys are not skilled, but to win at the rate they do is just not within the realm of normal winning rates even for the best players.

well Shannon just said they don't deserve their rank.

So you are saying that with this win rate they have been cheating all along and essentially discrediting the skill?

i'm sorry....I am done for sure this time.

No I am saying with a 68% win rate between the 2 of them when they play together is really fishy for 8 man games. 12% is a normal win rate, and if you double that up you are a great player. So 25% max for each ... but you cannot add 25% and 25% as 2 good players will void each other out to a degree. So the win rate for the 2 of them should be about 40% not 68%. Say whatever you want about their skill, there is just something that is not right. The numbers do not lie.

I have been colonel or brig for the majority of 8 man games so point hoarder is a given when playing das schloss or other objective maps. I started out with normal escalating freestyle and transitioned to objective escalating when i realized its potential so long ago. I think you will find that objective does provide a much higher win percentage. and what they do is not too out of the ordinary for objective players. I probably have played more 8 person objective than anyone on cc however.

explain to me why 68 percent is unbelievable? 8 person without objective is what you seem to be talking about

EDIT: it seems as if my maprank ads in quads freestyle as well. that may explain the .528 and high win percentage. I try clicking on assassin terminator and standard only but it still seems to add in quads in some way...

I don't find the 68% win rate between the two of them strange at all. 8-player freestyle games in objective maps like Third Crusade are quite tricky, allowing the player who has mastered them to win much more frequently than 1/8 of the times. Of course occasionally you might fall victim to very bad dice or an unreasonable attack by some noob. If however there are 2 players who excel in these settings, the chances that 1 of them wins can be extremely high (even 75-80% wouldn't surprise me), it is some sort of a guaranteee

SirJohn13 wrote:I don't find the 68% win rate between the two of them strange at all. 8-player freestyle games in objective maps like Third Crusade are quite tricky, allowing the player who has mastered them to win much more frequently than 1/8 of the times. Of course occasionally you might fall victim to very bad dice or an unreasonable attack by some noob. If however there are 2 players who excel in these settings, the chances that 1 of them wins can be extremely high (even 75-80% wouldn't surprise me), it is some sort of a guaranteee

Did you look at the stats of me and Jsynder.. our stats are very close. J plays his fair share of fs games on maps like they play. Why is he soo low and they are soo high? Surely he does not suck that bad!